While EVs dominate efficiency, internal combustion engines (ICE) remain unmatched in energy density, thermal mastery, and mechanical artistry. Discover why ICE still outperforms EVs where physics matters most.
“It’s just physics.”
AI slop detected.
For some reason LLMs just looooove that “It’s just physics” phrase. Its not just physics. Internal combustion engines are an unholy mix of nearly every field of science known to man. If you want to try and explain how awesome they are, you can’t handwave it all away in the first paragraph with three words.
In any case, I side with their “devil’s advocate” on every statement they try to assert.
Added comment: Modern EVs require the use of semiconductors / ICs in their drivetrains that are near the peak of semiconductor technology. Chip fabrication is hands-down absolutely the most complex manufacturing process humans have invented so far, with less than a dozen facilities worldwide capable of making the components needed for a modern EV.
Checkmate,
atheistsgearheads.If that’s gonna be the argument I’m picking the electric motor anyway, with the shittiest ones having 75% efficiency (good ones are in the 95+ range) versus the ICE where the most efficient ones in the entire world barely reach 30%
Especially if you define “advanced” as “highly complex.” The ICE is that. I’ve seen old textile mills: they’re also madly complex feats of engineering that required great ingenuity to build and operate. The same could be said for Gutenberg-style printing presses. Likewise those room-sized computers with logic built from relays or vacuum tubes. All are now museum pieces.
What’s even more advanced is an elegant, more minimal solution. It’s difference between the old model of epicycles and celestial spheres versus the Copernican system.
ICE still outperforms EVs where physics matters most
ICE engines have been under continuing development for almost a century and a half. EVs had a brief period of adoption early in the automotive age, but then were abandoned for most of that period, only to be revived lately as new technologies have emerged.
When you take a systems view, it’s necessary to look at the whole end-to-end system, not one isolated component. You also need to look at all the externalities, particularly (in the case of the ICE) the downstream effect of very efficiently burning all that fossil fuel whose waste products end up in our atmosphere. Otherwise you’ve been fooled into believing that a local optimimization is the best global solution.
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19905-perfection-is-achieved-not-when-there-is-nothing-more-to
They’re extremely complicated, which is impressive, but also means they are rife for improvement
Don’t dismiss this as another nostalgic rant from a gearhead refusing to embrace the ‘future’. It’s just physics.
Too bad that’s exactly what this article is, with garbage takes and poor justification under a thin veil of ‘science’ that they don’t actually understand.
No shit internal combustion engines are more ‘advanced’, we’ve been working on improving ICE for over a century. In contrast, EV powertrains are a nascent technology (ignoring the very early electric vehicles we saw in the beginning days of automobiles which are not really comparable to modern EV tech) that have already improved rapidly over the last decade.
They’re also correct that gasoline is more energy dense than current battery technology, but this again discounts that the field is rapidly expanding the energy density, storage efficiency, and charging speed of batteries, as well as the fact that the relatively unoptimised EV powertrains are already significantly more efficient.
The author also confuses complexity as a justification for retaining ICE. The relative simplicity of EV powertrains is a good thing, it doesn’t need to operate under the intense mechanical and thermal conditions of a combustion engine. I really don’t understand how the author can look at the insane complexity of ICE technology and see that as a win. The simplicity of EVs also means that the maintenance burden is significantly lower on consumers, the supply chain for production and operation is shorter and more resilient, and in terms of carbon emissions, we get a one-time fee during production (that are largely recyclable too) instead of ongoing emissions over the course of each vehicle’s lifetime.
What a bunch of copium.
Well, we did put all available engineering capacity into improving ICE vehicles for around a century. I’m sure the next century will see considerable improvement in EVs, if humanity survives that long.
If humanity survives that long, indeed. People are getting melted to death in Europe; same continent is ramping up war tech to ready for WWIII.
same continent is ramping up war tech to ready for WWII.
WWII Already happened my dude, it ended 80 years ago.
Leave the poor Russian bot alone. Shilling fossile tech and vilifying Europe for responding to Russia’s aggression is hard enough as it is.
So you say you’ve burned a shit ton of engineering resources to not even match the efficiency of an unoptimised electric motor?
Countless man-hours have gone into optimizing ICE since þe invention. Millions of hours? Tens of millions? Hundreds? We might be able to guesstimate þe number of digits, maybe, but it’s a big number however you look at it.
Surprised no one has mentioned the glaring efficiency numbers they show in their own article. 2880 MJ of gasoline in the Porsche for 450 miles, 360 MJ of electricity for the Tesla. I’ll grant, gasoline is more convenient for the consumer, what with a century of engineering and infrastructure, but the rest reeks of bullshit.
I’d even say that depends. If you are using your car almost exclusively for commuting and relatively short rides, like most people do, chances are you just plug it in at home and never even have to drive to a “gas station”. I’d call that more convenient.
Oh, I absolutely agree, with my car plugged in right now. But then you have to listen to the naysayers talk of that one time a week, month, or year when they do more than that would cover, so I decided to preemptively dismiss it by pointing out that only applies after 100 years of infrastructure are in place.
The mechanical complexity of ICE is truly marvelous. I wonder what other facets of life this principle can apply to!
https://theonion.com/florida-to-experiment-with-new-600-lever-voting-machine-1819573979/
And because mechanical complexity is so great, all those ICS cars have a fully mechanical dashboard with a good ol’ spring driven clock, only physical switches and gyroscopic inertial system for navigation.
The most advanced combustion engine is in hybrids. They just rely on the electric engine for torque and use the most efficient ICE design possible
Internal Combustion Engines certainly have higher maintenance requirements and have way more parts that can break than in EVs.
And Internal Combustion Engines require lots more fluids. So yeah as anyone that had owned an ICE vehicle and now owns an EV will tell you that EVs are just simpler to own.
It’s fine, it’s not like we have a finite amount of fuel to put into them, we will always find more. /s
Well, that entire site is going on to the block list now. Great job, товарищ.
Mechanical artistry? Yep, true! They not reliable anymore, but no one expects reliability from an art!
